324 GLEANINGS IN liEK CULTURE. Feb. 15 



the biological knowledge concerning Apis melliiica ' which has been gained by practical 

 bee-keeping has scarcely entered scientific literature, and, strangely enough, the results 

 are little regarded : it has not passed over into the flesh and blood of science. In proof 

 of this there are the vague, defective assertions which are found in the newest editions of 

 scientific works. Thus in a well-known text-book of zoology we read that a colony of 

 bees contains about 10,000 workers. Such a small colony as that, i kilo of bees (5000 

 generally counted to a half-kilo) is not capable of developing under ordinary circumstances, 

 nor of living over the winter. If a colony of medium strength is considered normal, then 

 a normal colony contains at least 20,000 to 30,000 bees. The following statement also is 

 wrong : "If a young queen emerges from her cell, then the former queen leaves 

 the hive with part of the colony (first swarm) to found a new colony." Normally the 

 swarm has issued by the time the cells containing young queens are sealed. Since it 

 takes 16 or 17 days for the complete development of a queen, and the cell is closed on the 

 ninth day, the hive is without an emerged queen for seven or eight days after the issue 

 of the first swarm. The after-swarm, therefore, normally issues seldom before the ninth 

 day after the issue of the first swarm. In Bechhold's Lexikon der Naturwissenschaften, 

 1894, there are similar incorrect statements. Among other things, a vigorous colony is 

 said to contain, at most, 30,000 workers. But since strong colonies can sustain swarms of 

 three or four kilos (27,000 to 36,000 bees), it follows that the whole number of inmates 

 may amount to 60,000 or 75,000 and more, for usually a little more than half remain in the 

 hive. Only 9000 swarming bees are counted to the kilo, because the honey-sacs of all are 

 filled. Claus,' in a paper which contains many other errors, doubts that bees are able 

 to hear. No zoologist who has done any experimental bee-keeping can have the least 

 doubt that bees have an excellent sense of hearing, since observations yield him hundreds 

 of proofs. The man who is not familiar with biological facts might recognize nothing of 

 the kind with certainty, for up to the present the organ of hearing has not been discovered. 

 It appears, however, that the work of Otto Schenk indicates an advance in this direc- 

 tion (Schenk: Die antennalen Hautsinnes-organe einiger Lepidopteren und Hymenopteren, 

 Zool. Jahrb., 1902). In this work on antennse the presence of organs is demonstrated, 

 which, with more probability than has been ppssible heretofore, may signify organs o^ 

 hearing. Again, the work of Vitus Graber, '"Die Insekten," Miinchen, 1879, in picturing 

 the social life of insects, shows a series of errors and incorrect assertions so far as bees 

 are concerned (Part II., 2d half, pp. 232-248). A refutation would take up too much 

 space, and would lead me too far ; but I might mention, for example, that Graber declares 

 that the queen normally flies about inside the hive, because she "can not always pass per 

 pedes through the vertical paths inside" (1. c, p. 88). Further, Wundt • ( Vorlesungen iiber 



'Apis mellHica L., or Apis mellifera L. ? As is well known, the rule of priority begins as far back 

 as the tenth edition of Linnaeus' "Systema Naturae," in 1758. In that year we find the honey-bee 

 designated by Linnaeus as Apis mellifera. Three years later he named it Apis melliiica, probably because 

 he recognized that the name first given was erroneous, for the bee does not carry in honey but nectar, 

 making the honey in the hive. It is, therefore, not a carrier of honey {mellifera) , but a maker of 

 honey (.melliiica). Be that as it may, the first author himself undertook the correction after a short 

 time. Then developed an overwhelmingly rich literature concerning Apis melliiica (not mellifera), which 

 is now inexhaustible, even to the speci'-lists, if the non-scientific literature on bees be included. The 

 bibliography of the late Mr. Edward Drory, of Berlin, relative to the honey-bee alone, embraces, for 

 iexample, more than 2500 works. In the catalog^uc "Elenchus Librorum de Apium Cultura," Biblio- 

 graphia Universale de Apicultura, raccolta per Aug^usto Keller, 2300 works on melliiica are cited. 



Under the circumstances Friese (as writer on Apidae for the Tierreich), and I have thought that, 

 in spite of the rule of priority, we would not be justified in reestablishing the name "mellifera." which was 

 recognized as incorrect, and shortly rejected by the first author. This is the result of mature delibera- 

 tion at various times during many years. Not only were the reasons just mentioned arguments for 

 retaining the name adopted 150 years ago, but also the knowledge that its establishment proves how 

 powerless the regulations of the priority rule itself are in definite cases. They are powerless in .spite 

 of the rules for the "Tierreich," in spite of Delia-Torre's "Catalogue Hymenopterorum," and even in 

 spite of Friese and others of the originators of the priority rules for each case. For example, for the 

 genus of solitary bees "Anthophora," the name "Podalirius" was introduced, or at least according to 

 the new system an attempt was made to introduce it. But here the case was like that of melliiica — the 

 first author himself, for certain valid reasons, changed the name after a short time from "Podalirius" 

 tu "Anthophora." Thus the name Podalirius did not prevail. It has not succeeded in becoming estab- 

 lished in the lapse of years, and there is not the slightest probability that it will change in the future. 

 I quote this discussion from my work which has just appeared, "Apistica. Beitriige zur Systematik Biologic, 

 sowie zur geschichtlichen und geographischen \'erbreitung der Honigbiene (.Apis melliiica, L.), ihrei 

 Vanetaten und der ubrigen Apis-Arten." Mitth. d. Kgl. Zoolog. Museums in Berlin, 1906. 



• Claus, Der Bienenstaat. Part 179 of the collection of scientific papers published by Virchow und 

 Holtzendorf. Hamburg 1873. 



